A/HRC/17/36 respective instruments, which did not cover all provisions contained in the Convention and the optional protocols. 59. A few States proposed that the Committee should systematically decide on the admissibility of a communication before seeking the State party’s observations on the merits. However, this proposal did not attract support from other delegations, which considered that this would delay the procedure considerably. The Chairperson recalled that the current practice of treaty bodies did not favour such an approach. J. Communications not revealing a clear disadvantage 60. A number of States proposed the insertion either in the protocol or in the Committee’s rules of procedure of a provision similar to article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights providing the Committee with the possibility of declining to consider a communication where it did not reveal that the author had suffered a clear disadvantage.12 Such a provision, which also exists in the European Convention on Human Rights, was perceived as a way to avoid a potential backlog to the Committee as well as to filter so-called petty complaints. 61. Other delegations and non-governmental organizations were not in favour of such a provision and considered that the problem raised could be dealt with by declaring such communications inadmissible because they were manifestly ill-founded, not sufficiently substantiated or an abuse of the right of submission. It was difficult to think of a situation where a child’s rights had been violated but the child had suffered “no clear disadvantage”. A disadvantage was a necessary and unavoidable consequence of a violation, even if harm cannot always be quantified. K. Interim measures13 62. Many delegations expressed their support for the inclusion of an article providing the Committee with competence to request States parties to take interim measures to avoid irreparable harm to alleged victims. Many delegations requested the inclusion of wording similar to article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, namely that such request would only be made in exceptional circumstances. Several delegations, non-governmental organizations and experts, including Committee members, considered that this threshold was excessive and argued that “irreparable harm” sufficiently reflected the exceptional nature of interim measures. One delegation suggested including a qualification on the non-binding nature of interim measures. Another delegation challenged the authority of the Committee to request interim measures and suggested including a timeline for their validity (which could be shorter than the duration of the proceedings before the Committee) and for the adoption of a decision by 12 13 16 As a result, article 10 was introduced in the revised proposal, reading “The Committee may, if necessary, decline to consider a communication where it does not reveal that the author has suffered a clear disadvantage, unless the Committee considers that the communication raises a serious issue of general importance.” Article 8 of the revised proposal: “1. At any time after the receipt of a communication and before a determination on the merits has been reached, the Committee may transmit to the State party concerned for its urgent consideration a request that the State party take such interim measures as may be necessary to avoid possible irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violations. 2. Where the Committee exercises its discretion under paragraph 1 of the present article, this does not imply a determination on admissibility or on the merits of the communication.”